Dismissed

R. Sivadasan Nair v. the Tiruvananthapuram Regional Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd.

Kerala HC27 May 2016WA/987/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeared on behalf of the appellant in defense of an interim order allowing him to continue service until result of writ petition regarding retirement. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the interim order as it protected appellant's monetary interests without definitively continuing him in service before merits are examined.

What did the court decide?

null

R. Sivadasan Nair Vs the Tiruvananthapuram… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2016/6TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶6

WA.No. 987 of 2016 () IN WP(C).17836/2016

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 17836/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 24-05-2016

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER :

¶9

R. SIVADASAN NAIR,

¶10

(SENIOR MANAGER(HRD), M/S. THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS' UNION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), S-28, GOKUL, SANKAR NAGAR, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SMT.P.ANJANA

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :

¶13

THE TIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSHEERABHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶14

MANAGING COMMITTEE/BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TRCMPU LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KSHEERABHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶15

R BY SMT.LATHA ANAND

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.

¶18

¶19

W.A. No. 987 of 2016

¶20

-----------------------------------------Dated this the 27^th day of May, 2016.

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Antony Dominic,J.

¶23

The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant. He is aggrieved by the interim order dated 24.05.2016 passed by the learned single Judge directing that the retirement of the appellant on 31.05.2016 will be subject to the result of the writ petition and recording the submission of the respondents that in case he succeeds in the writ petition, they will pay the entire amounts due to him as if he continued in service till 31.07.2016.

¶24

We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶25

The appellant, a managerial employee in the first respondent, filed the writ petition with a prayer to direct the respondents to correct his date of birth in the service records and other service register in tune with Ext.P5, the relevant page of the SSLC book. He also sought to quash Exts.P7 and P10, whereby his request for correction of date of birth was considered and rejected by the respondents. According to the learned counsel, in the light of the law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court and on the facts of the case, the impugned orders are clearly

¶26

W.A. No. 987/2016

¶27

-2-

¶28

untenable and the learned single Judge ought to have allowed him to continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation as per the date claimed by him.

¶29

In our view, as at present, this prayer made by the appellant cannot be accepted for the reason that as on date, this Court is yet to examine the contentions raised by the appellant questioning the legality of the impugned orders. Therefore, at this stage, this Court could not have permitted the appellant to continue in service beyond the date of superannuation reckoned on the basis of the age as entered in the service register. Therefore, we cannot direct that the appellant should be continued beyond 31.05.2016.

¶30

However, while declining the prayer made, the learned single Judge has fully protected the interests of the appellant by recording the submission of the respondents that they will pay the monetary benefits that are due to him in the event he succeeds in the writ petition.

¶31

Therefore the impugned order does not merit interference and the writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶32

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

¶33

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.

¶34

¶35

W.A. No. 987/2016 -3-

R. Sivadasan Nair v. the Tiruvananthapuram Regional Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Sivadasan Nair v. the Tiruvananthapuram Regional Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.M.Abubacker Vs Muhamma Masjidathul Muhammadiya Sangam

Smt. Neeta Anto Vs the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (Tds)

Arya Devi Vs the State of Kerala

Union of India Vs K.Parasurama Iyer

P.N.Sreekumar Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Hotel Surya Vs the State of Kerala